What a difference a colon makes: How superficial factors influence subsequent citation

Scientometrics

Volumn 98, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1601-1615

  van Wesel, Maarten ^a   Wyatt, Sally ^a   ten Haaf, Jeroen ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Applied Physics; Citations; General Internal Medicine; Readability; References; Sociology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897571037     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1154-x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ball, R., Mittermaier, B., & Tunger, D. (2009). Creation of journal-based publication profiles of scientific institutions-A methodology for the interdisciplinary comparison of scientific research based on the J-factor. Scientometrics, 81(2), 381-392. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-2120-5.
2. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research (2nd ed., Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing). Chicago: University of Chicago press.
3. Botton, A. D. (2001). The consolations of philosophy. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books Ltd.
4. Collins, H. M. (1990). Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent machines (inside technology). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Crossley, S., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475-493. doi: 10. 1002/j. 1545-7249. 2008. tb00142. x.
6. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233. doi: 10. 1037/h0057532.
7. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540-553. doi: http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. joi. 2010. 06. 003.
8. Frenken, K., Hölzl, W., & Vor, F. D. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: the case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988-2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 9-30. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1435-5957. 2010. 00309. x.
9. Friedman, D. B., Hoffman-Goetz, L., & Arocha, J. F. (2004). Readability of cancer information on the internet. Journal of Cancer Education, 19(2), 117-122. doi: 10. 1207/s15430154jce1902_13.
10. Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11(7), 513-516, 575-578. doi: 10. 2307/40013635.
11. Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113-122. doi: 10. 2307/284636.
12. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61(3), 395-404. doi: 10. 1023/B: SCIE. 0000045117. 13348. b1.
13. Hartley, J., Trueman, M., & Meadows, A. (1988). Readability and prestige in scientific journals. Journal of Information Science, 14(2), 69-75. doi: 10. 1177/016555158901500209.
14. Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169-185. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-007-1892-8.
15. Hayden, J. D. (2008). Readability of the British Journal of Surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 95, 119-124. doi: 10. 1002/bjs. 5994.
16. Hudson, J. (2007). Be known by the company you keep: Citations-quality or chance? Scientometrics, 71(2), 231-238. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-007-1671-6.
17. Jacques, T. S., & Sebire, N. J. (2010). The impact of article titles on citation hits: An analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Reports, 1(1). doi: 10. 1258/shorts. 2009. 100020.
18. Jamali, H., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics, 88(2), 653-661. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-011-0412-z.
19. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P, Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
20. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900-2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 288-296. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 20744.
21. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 434-442. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 21000.
24. Lin, S.-Y., Su, C.-C., Lai, Y.-D., Yang, L.-C., & Hsieh, S.-K. (2009). Assessing text readability using hierarchical lexical relations retrieved from WordNet. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 14(1), 45-84.
25. Martin, B., & Groth, E. (1991). Scientific knowledge in controversy: The social dynamics of the fluoridation debate (SUNY series in science, technology, and society). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
26. Merton, R. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. doi: 10. 1126/science. 159. 3810. 56.
27. Microsoft. (2003). Readability scores. http://office. microsoft. com/en-us/word/HP051863181033. aspx. Accessed 23 March 2013.
28. Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
29. Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science (George B. Pegram lectures, Vol. 1962). New York: Columbia University Press.
30. Ramos, M. A., Melo, J. G., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2012). Citation behavior in popular scientific papers: What is behind obscure citations? The case of ethnobotany. Scientometrics, 92, 711-719. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-012-0662-4.
31. Roberts, J. C., Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (1994). Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in annals of internal medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 119-121. doi: 10. 1001/jama. 1994. 03520020045012.
32. Smart, J. C., & Bayer, A. E. (1986). Author collaboration and impact: a note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics, 10(5-6), 297-305. doi: 10. 1007/BF02016776.
33. Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., & Verhoef, P. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 171-193. doi: 10. 1509/jmkg. 71. 3. 171.
34. Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2010). Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 1-13. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2009. 06. 002.
35. Villere, M. F., & Stearns, G. K. (1976). The readability of organizational behavior textbooks. The Academy of Management Journal, 19(1), 132-137. doi: 10. 2307/255455.
36. Wager, E., & Middleton, P. (2002). Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: A systematic review. JAMA, 287(21), 2821-2824. doi: 10. 1001/jama. 287. 21. 2821.
37. Wang, M., Yu, G., An, S., & Yu, D. (2012). Discovery of factors influencing citation impact based on a soft fuzzy rough set model. Scientometrics, 93, 635-644. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-012-0766-x.
38. Webster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., & Schember, T. O. (2009). Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Analyses of title words and citation counts in evolution and human behavior, 1979-2008. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 348-362.
39. Weeks, W. B., & Wallace, A. E. (2002). Readability of British and American medical prose at the start of the 21st century. British Medical Journal, 325, 1451-1452. doi: 10. 1136/bmj. 325. 7378. 1451.